Don't globalize me, bro!

"[Globalization is] a social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding." [1]

"Economic development tends to push societies in a common direction, but rather than converging, they seem to move on parallel trajectories shaped by their cultural heritage." [2]

"Countries and ogranizations do not gravitate toward a supposedly universal model of economic success and organizational form as they attempt to cope with globalization.  Rather, the mutual awareness that globalization entails invites them to be different, namely, to use their economic, political and social advantages as leverage in the global marketplace." [3]

I always figured this was true, that whether Chinese were or weren't becoming westrnised, there was always going to be something that wasn't westernised, and it would be stronger than the altered part.

?!?

Discuss.



[1] Waters, M. (1995). Globalization.  New York: Routledge
[2] Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000). "Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values."  American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.
[3] Guillen, M.F. (2001). The Limits of Convergence: Globalization and Organizational Change in Argentina, South Korea and Spain. Princeton: Princeton university Press.

    That gave me a headache ...... I think I will go and lie down for a while 

China still suffers the delusion that they can "globalize" entirely on their own terms...that they can integrate with the world but still keep the corruption, nepotism, shoddy practices, etc. that they make so much money from. I sure hope they're wrong about this. If they're not, well, the world has pretty much gone to hell anyway, and it just doesn't matter anymore.

And what makes the rest of the world so sure that there is no corruption in their home countries?  I challenge anyone to paint a real portrait of moral, ethic and honest government in the globalized western world (North America and Europe).  Globalization is more about real power not being available to governments, rather having the power vested in boards that have no allegiance to anything other than the currency of choice.

And what makes the rest of the world so sure that there is no corruption in their home countries?  I challenge anyone to paint a real portrait of moral, ethic and honest government in the globalized western world (North America and Europe).

There was a book some years back "But Not in Canada!". Some smug Canucks say a lot of silly things about the US, claiming they have lot of problems that we (I'm Canadian) don't. The book debunked that. Each chapter dealt with a different problem, showing that we had it too. Chapter one was about racism and gave some pretty awful examples of bad treatment of the first Chinese immigrants, about 1870.

The chapter on corruption looked at all our Prime Ministers from Confederation (1867) to the publication date (1976). There was only one who did not lose a cabinet member in some sort of corruption scandal -- bribery, nepotism, insider trading, ...  That was the guy who was only PM for four days.  

China still suffers the delusion that they can "globalize" entirely on their own terms...that they can integrate with the world but still keep the corruption, nepotism, shoddy practices, etc. that they make so much money from. I sure hope they're wrong about this. If they're not, well, the world has pretty much gone to hell anyway, and it just doesn't matter anymore.

One of the odd ball things I'm trying to get my head around in my new text books (where those quotes come from) is the claim that research appears to show, on the whole, around the world, while values may change, culture usually doesn't.  Can't work that out without a way more clear definition of culture than is ever usually offered.  But still, it seems to fit in with a perception I often had while in China that whatever lipservice was paid to new ways of thinking, there would still always be a whole bunch of mostly unstated beliefs that wouldn't change.

Actually, at least from the stated, lipservicy point of view, China is pretty clear that they won't globalize*.  They will, they say, industrialize, but will accept the good and reject the bad.  Fairly explicitly culturally protectionist there.  Normally I would have said, and felt bad about saying, that that's China being isolationist and zenophobic.  But maybe it isn't.   Maybe it's an extreme version of what every culture is doing.  Or not.  I dunno.

So I wonder about the corruption, nepotism, shoddy practices... the nationalism, the "Woe-are-Us, We-was-invaded" preaching, the collectivism... it may, perhaps, never truly go away.  Never.

This may not be a bad thing.






* Nor even globalise, not unless Kevin Rudd keeps up the Mandarin.

i think china is more ready to adapt than most of the western countries

chinese culture is in an embryonic stage at the moment. i know they go on about 5000 year old civilisation, but in my experience younger people (under 35 say) are just as fervent in drawing a line between 'old china' with all the superstitions and so on as they are banging on about the greatest empire ever etcetc

if you look at how they lap up korean and japanese pop culture etc

from my history book the corruption was not a serious problem until the reforms of the 70s/80s/90s although i don't know if that's true or not cos i haven't studied it just read some overview type stuff

i've not even been here a year yet, so this is very much from my tip of the iceberg perspective (and i only get to talk about it with middle class chinese who speak english and foreigners who have been here a while....) but i don't see much chinese culture tbh

another thought (sorry i'm going off on tangents here) is that european cultures have also been incredibly diluted. traditional english culture like pubs and football are like theme pubs of how they were 15 years ago.

back to economics lol. i think it's pretty obvious that there is no universal economic model of success (not within a capitalist framework anyway....) so of course countries will have to adapt the dominant ideology to their own needs because culture doesn't move that quickly, i reckon it takes 2 or 3 generations for ideas to change, china has changed so rapidly, a lot of the students i meet who are my age and higher up the social ladder than me grew up in villages with one tv and one car for the whole village

sorry, that's all over the place....

Yes, I've witnessed a 'dilution' of so much traditional
Australian 'culture' over the years. The globalized-jargon, for example,
 is pervasive, largely due to the influence of US movies, Tv, songs,
etc. But whoa, no, I'm not pushing this back away as if its some kind of bad thing.

About seven years ago here, the former Federal government called
for public, and media, debate/discussion to try to identify the unique
'features' of being an Australian. Such as 'what are our own traditions and values that make us different from other nationalities'. (what makes us, 'us')The then-government was at that time drafting a new oath of allegiance for intending-citizens, hence the
call for submissions.

As far as I know, despite a million or so opinions being expressed, nobody could
actually come-up with a coherent definition. In that case, well we are a vacuum, and
the globalization merely rushes-in to fill it, as in a natural process.
Sorry, but I don't think I've discussed the OP in quite the way, the economic
aspects, that was sought.

Calach, I'm not sure if Kev Rudd ('Lu Ke-wen')is employing his Mandarin-skills as much, in recent months.
His 'special relationship', with China, has been somewhat toned-down in the last 12 months, after a couple of incidents, as well as some pressure from the trade-unions for him to adhere to a more-protectionist stance.

there was always going to be something that wasn't westernised, and it would be stronger than the altered part.

I think Calach has got it right. I might be wrong, but to me the 3 quotes help explain the "X ...... with Chinese characteristics," approach of the government. It allows them to say,'we are doing x, while continuing to implement a policy that has only a tenuous relationship to our concept of X.

The CP holds that it is, of course, committed to realising 'democracy' in China - in fact, it is already here as we in China are told that we are living in a 'socialist democracy.' While we may not think that the present system comes within a bulls roar of democracy as we know it, it is pretty hard to argue with the qualification 'with Chinese characteristics.'

The Chinese seem to be pretty good at re-defining our language and concepts as a preliminary to any debate. We might be using the same word, or referring to the same concept, but it pays to check their interpretation of the word or concept before you start beating your head against the wall. Even then I fear you will still end up in a head banging session.

This came home to me when I read a CP review that held "there are many forms of democracy, including totalitarian democracy."

At the very least, the 3 quotes help explain why dining out in a 'Western restaurant with Chinese characteristics is often such an underwhelming experience. They may also explain why they are unlikely to get it right - they do not want to change.     

They say of culture that there are three levels: the manifest, the expressed, and the basic.

Manifest culture is the stuff you can see and hear: language, clothing, dances, institutions and whatnot.  The expressed consists of what the members of the culture will say when asked to describe their culture.  At the basic level however are the fundamental assumptions of the culture that no one recognises as necessary to explain: basic, foundational beliefs that the users regard as true and universal, and they have no idea why anyone would question them.

One assumes the manifest culture admits a lot of variation while the expressed culture doesn't.  Expressed culture serves as a curb on too many changes in manifest culture, and--depending A LOT on what exists in the basic culture--expressed culture slowly changes or sticks itself in the mud.  If basic culture lets people be outward looking and includes an idea of incorporating external influences, then--I guess--"culture" can give the appearance of having changed, when really it's just being flexible.  Otherwise, not.


It's just an intuition, really.  That Chinese are going to go maintain something of themselves.  Right now I'd say from the government down they have a policy of retaining, or attempting to retain, initiative in their own hands.  That is, push come to shove, they insist they have a bunch of rights over stuff.  Push not come to shove, they resort to soft power methods, none of which are meant really to be cooperative.  Ultimately it's expressed in authoritarian measures, and I'm not sure that will ever change.  They may lighten up in their expression of stuff, but the idea of retaining power in their own hands will continue to be a motif, inside and outside of the country.

I imagine this is hardly unique to the Chinese.  However, can anyone imagine a time when "consensual power sharing" is the norm?  That would be a strange day.




Oh and, LOL at "totalitarian democracy".  The CP are such merry pranksters.

from my history book the corruption was not a serious problem until the reforms of the 70s/80s/90s although i don't know if that's true or not cos i haven't studied it just read some overview type stuff

From the books I've read, it has been a problem for centuries, and fairly often a reason for peasant revolts, sometimes a change of dynasty.

In particular, the Ming dynasty started with such a revolt and one book I had claimed corruption in the Nationalist government was the main reason Mao got peasant support and won the civil war.

From something I read--I think it was something on a strategic assessment website--corruption is supposed to have changed character over the last fifty years.  Where it used to be the province of older men looking to their retirement and fiddling things within their control it has these days become a younger man's game with more people--sometimes whole local governments--colluding.  This is said to indicate a fundamental lack of faith in a stable future.  Pragmatically speaking, it also suggests a possible future moment where the bureaucracy as an entity becomes wholly incompatible with actual basic governance of fundamental provision for the people.

I always assumed that bureaucracy as an entity was inherently corrupt in all societies.

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

China ranks 79 from 180.  Kiwis are the least corrupt!!

I like this table.  It doesn't specify that there are any countries with NO corruption - but it looks at levels.

Globalisation is happening in China, and despite much overt angst by the populace and gov't over losing their own culture, no-one is really doing anything about keeping what CP is calling the expressed and the basic, but they do make an effort to keep the manifest out front - mostly for tourist purposes and to pretend that the minorities are being treated equally.

When we talk about the basic, I am assuming we are talking about the mores and folkways that shape written and unwritten laws.  Laws are changing in response to external pressures (trade in particular). Even corruption laws are being given a few more teeth.  

Mores move with the times, and these times are strongly influenced by TV, the internet etc. Look at the greater acceptance of couples living together, homosexuality and the many other social changes happening.

Folkways will also change as more students who leave villages and move into cities and business people stop observing QingMing Jie and other festivals as anything but a holiday. A whole bunch of other practices will gradually disappear.  Things like making sure the kitchen god is happy etc will go very quickly.  Ask your students now about how many of them have kitchen god ceremonies each year.  Fewer parents will move in with their adult children as they move more frequently around the country with promotions, changes in business etc.  So the emphasis on family will become more 'western' - more retirement villages, nursing homes etc will spring up.  The expression will still be the same, but the basic will change.  ("We love our parents and owe them so much, this is why we are paying for the best nursing home.  We are too busy working to look after them.")

The biggest worry for gov't will be inflation and the demand for a rise in living standard from millions of factory workers.  As their pay rises the possibility of Chinese and foreign companies moving off-shore is strong.  The demand for cheap manufacturing (which has, in part, been one of the drivers for fake/shoddy manufacturing) will keep wages down for some time.  However, to stop creating fake/shoddy items, you need to hire more skilled workers, have better machinery, better management, better raw materials - all costing money.  When wages do start to move, the loss of employment is a problem that the current welfare system is not capable of managing.

Globalisation is happening in China, and despite much overt angst by the populace and gov't over losing their own culture, no-one is really doing anything about keeping what CP is calling the expressed and the basic, but they do make an effort to keep the manifest out front - mostly for tourist purposes and to pretend that the minorities are being treated equally.

When we talk about the basic, I am assuming we are talking about the mores and folkways that shape written and unwritten laws.  Laws are changing in response to external pressures (trade in particular). Even corruption laws are being given a few more teeth.  

Mores move with the times, and these times are strongly influenced by TV, the internet etc. Look at the greater acceptance of couples living together, homosexuality and the many other social changes happening.

Folkways will also change as more students who leave villages and move into cities and business people stop observing QingMing Jie and other festivals as anything but a holiday. A whole bunch of other practices will gradually disappear.  Things like making sure the kitchen god is happy etc will go very quickly.  Ask your students now about how many of them have kitchen god ceremonies each year.  Fewer parents will move in with their adult children as they move more frequently around the country with promotions, changes in business etc.  So the emphasis on family will become more 'western' - more retirement villages, nursing homes etc will spring up.  The expression will still be the same, but the basic will change.  ("We love our parents and owe them so much, this is why we are paying for the best nursing home.  We are too busy working to look after them.")

^^^I'm pretty sure that stuff counts as manifest and/or expressed.  Kitchen god stuff is manifest.  Speaking about parents the way they do is also manifest culture, unless they say something like "All Chinese love their parents," in which case it's expressed.  Generally speaking none of it is basic culture inasmuch as the definition of basic culture says, more or less, basic culture isn't visible on its own.  Basic culture is so fundamental to the person's cultural identity that they don't even know they're supposed to tell you about it.  And if they had to tell you about it, they might not be able to put it into words.

If there is such a thing as basic culture, it will be present when the people are negotiating their new identities and will insist on becoming part of that identity.  And if the new identity cannot include that original basic culture, the people in question are likely to resist it as so totally alien that it cannot be accepted.  The whole "with Chinese characteristic" is, in the end, no joke.

I wonder what is fundamental to a Chinese identity.

The biggest worry for gov't will be inflation and the demand for a rise in living standard from millions of factory workers.  As their pay rises the possibility of Chinese and foreign companies moving off-shore is strong.  The demand for cheap manufacturing (which has, in part, been one of the drivers for fake/shoddy manufacturing) will keep wages down for some time.  However, to stop creating fake/shoddy items, you need to hire more skilled workers, have better machinery, better management, better raw materials - all costing money.  When wages do start to move, the loss of employment is a problem that the current welfare system is not capable of managing.

Yeah.  What is China generating to take over as the main "employer" when cheap labour is no longer what China offers?  Pop Globalisation tells us India began a move into services and hi tech.  China shall... export people?